IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserve: 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement:09.10.2025 Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Asha Rani and anr. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Kinushk Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for respondent No. 1/caveator.

***

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J.

1. Present revision petition has been preferred against order dated 09.05.2025, passed by learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and order dated 15.03.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)/Rent Controller, Batala has been set aside.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed eviction petition against the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)/Rent Controller, Batala on the following grounds:-

(i) Non payment of rent and arrears of rent since April, 2010.

(ii) Subletting the demised premises to respondent No. 2 (iii) Personal necessity, since she required the demised premises for her own use for carrying on the business of sale of ladies garments, handbags etc.

3. However, the eviction petition filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed, vide order dated 15.03.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.

Divn.)/Rent Controller, Batala.

4. Respondent No. 1 filed appeal before learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur against order dated 15.03.2021, which was allowed vide order dated 09.05.2025 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises within a period of three months. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends as under:-

(a) That respondent No. 1 has other shops also and she can use the same for personal necessity.

(b) That respondent No. 1 has sold other shops and if requirement would have been bona fide then she could use other shops instead the one (the disputed shop) the petitioner is in possession of since 1966 in view of formal agreement with husband of respondent No. 1.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contends that respondent No. 1 is a widow and she wants to renovate the demised premises which is in dilapidated condition and do her business of sale of ladies garments, handbags etc. She further contends that the owner is to decide which shop is to be used by her/him for her/his business.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file of this case with their able assistance.

8. As per Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the landlord may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, in case the rented property is required for his own use.

9. In the present case, undisputedly, respondent No. 1 is owner of shop and she being widow requires the same for her bonafide necessity of opening the business of sale of ladies garments, handbags etc.

10. The eviction from the demised premises sought by respondent No. 1 is on the ground of bona fide requirement. A perusal of the file shows that the eviction petition was filed in the year 2011 and the shops were sold by respondent No. 1 in the year 2001 and 2009. It is not the case of the petitioner that the shops were sold immediately before the filing of the eviction petition. Further respondent No. 1 is the owner of the property and she has every right to decide which property is to be sold and just because it is in possession of the petitioner/tenant, there is no bar of sale of the said premises. It is the landlord who is to decide which property is to be sold and which property is to be kept for personal necessity. The sale of other shops does not falsify the fact of bona fide necessity of respondent No. 1 for doing her own business. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 1 is holding any other suitable residential building in urban area that can fulfil her bona fide need. Therefore, the